Interesting read!
The Flashman Report
-
I’m pretty sure it won’t ‘revert’ to anything, whoever controlled it before it became contested will control it after it is vacant of all units. In this case, that’s Britain.
-
If it’s Smyrna, then wouldn’t it just go back to being an uncontested Turkish territory?
-
who controlled it at the beginning of the turn of the annihilation?
-
The british controlled it. The turks killed the units but still failed to take the territory as they were all dead. Hence it remains British
-
Doesn’t it go back to the Turks?
-
No, because the British still own it.
-
Question posed here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30272.165 for Krieghund to clarify, but I’m pretty sure since there were no Turk units left, control stays with Britain.
-
Question posed here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30272.165 for Krieghund to clarify, but I’m pretty sure since there were no Turk units left, control stays with Britain.
Why would this be any different than in any other A&A game?
-
The question is about what happens if a battle in a contested tt results in all units destroying each other;
You cannot keep track of who last had control of every tt, so it must either revert to control of the original owner or (as I guess) nobody controls it until a unit enters to take control.
-
OK, so I guessed wrongly.
-
Well, because of the new concept of ‘contested’ tt’s. Krieg actually said that control reverts to the original power, which surprised me.
Once territories are contested (which happens as soon as an enemy force moves in), they have no “memory” of any previous controller other than the original one. The original controller is the power whose sole emblem is on the territory (neutral territories, aligned or otherwise, have no original controller).
-
Well, because of the new concept of ‘contested’ tt’s. Krieg actually said that control reverts to the original power, which surprised me.
My reading of the rulebook last night says any territory not occupied by infantry reverts to its original owner. Right there on page 15:
“If you move all of your units out of a contested territory and leave only units from the other side there, the other side will immediately claim the territory. If the territory was originally controlled by a power on the other side, that power will take control (even if it has no units present).”
So, in Africa the Entente needs to “nail down” colonies with infantry or they’ll revert to German. That should make that place more interesting.
On page 20, though, it says “If your power takes control of a territory, whether by capturing it in combat or through all enemy units moving out and leaving your units in possession of it, you place your power’s control marker on it….”
It’s funny that it says “leaving your units in possession of it” on page 20. Contradictory. Glad Krieghund put down a verdict.
Yrs.,
R. -
I think you’re mistaken - if you place a control marker, you control that tt until an enemy unit removes it, even if you leave the tt with no units.
Its when leaving a contested tt that control reverts to the original owner, because there is no control marker to remove.
-
The situation facing Austria on turn 5 nicely summarizes what I always thought would be the major issue with this game - supply lines.
Having recovered from a disastrous start, Austria now stands at the gates of Rome, but with somewhat depleted army. It still has a stack of artillery and air support, but few infantry to soak up hits. Ther planned move on Rome must be postponed. They’ve also recovered in the east, with an army in Galicia facing the Russians.
Problem is, I can’t see ever breaking through to their objectives because it just takes too long to bring up reinforcements.
The Americans have taken resposibility for defending Rome, and they can ship units there in two turns. It takes new Austrian units FOUR turns to reach Rome. Austria has no navy, and the UK/Italian fleets in the Med will soon dispose of any they try to build. The Allies can also reinforce Rome from Marseilles or Trans-Jordan in a single turn if they need to.
Germany had a large army in Burgundy at one point, but the slowness of new units to get to the front doomed it to destruction.
The lack of trains absolutely cripples the Central Powers. Even if they’re doing well, the lack of mobility means that the Allies will always be able to reinforce where they need to before the CPs can bring fresh units to bear.
I’m prepared to reconsider this conclusion if and when I read reports of games where the CPs actually capture western Allied capitals, until then I’ll believe that the Allies will always be able to hold out long enough to force a stalemate.
I think that perhaps the Victory City idea may be more practical, with VCs corresponding with the 12 centres of production viz:
Washington
London
Halifax NS
Bombay
Paris
Rome
Petrograd
Moscow
Berlin
Strasbourg/Munich?
Vienna
Constantinople -
Keep in mind that it cripples the Allies as well if they’re succeeding, although to a somewhat lesser degree due to their naval abilities.
In the end, I agree that not having rail in this game stunts whichever powers are doing well, and more so for the CP’s.
And, unlike trench warfare, air superiority, and all the other ‘difficulties’ in the game that are actually historical, not being able to move units up fast enough to support the front is not.
-
Two questions Flashman:
One- about tt returning to original owner- In the case of England taking Mesopotamia (not contested, but solely owning), and then the Ottoman attack and both sides are wiped out. Is the original owner still Ottoman? or in this case the original owner of the territory immediately preceding the attack, which would be England?
Two- As Austria, you don’t have supply lines? As in, no Infantry in the territory behind your artillery? and more Infantry in every territory going back to Vienna? Therefore you would have reinforcements every turn to the front?
-
One- about tt returning to original owner- In the case of England taking Mesopotamia (not contested, but solely owning), and then the Ottoman attack and both sides are wiped out. Is the original owner still Ottoman? or in this case the original owner of the territory immediately preceding the attack, which would be England?
Original owner is always the one with their flag printed on the board. In this case, the Ottomans.
-
That doesn’t seem to be what Flashman said, or maybe I’m reading it wrong.
-
I think you’re mistaken - if you place a control marker, you control that tt until an enemy unit removes it, even if you leave the tt with no units. Its when leaving a contested tt that control reverts to the original owner, because there is no control marker to remove.
Ah, I think you’re right now. I just read the preceding sentence: “If you move all of your units out of a territory you control, you still retain control of that territory until an enemy moves into and captures it.”
Yrs.,
R -
You cannot be expected to remember which was the last power to control a tt, so if there is no control marker, an empty tt revert to original owner. In the example from my game, there is a UK contol marker but no Ottoman unit to remove it, so it stays.
Regarding Austria, the point about the supply lines is thay’re so damned slow: 4 times as long to reach Rome from Vienna as from Washington. Apart from Maybe France pushing towards the German border, this is hardly a problem at all for the Allies.
Two questions Flashman:
One- about tt returning to original owner- Â In the case of England taking Mesopotamia (not contested, but solely owning), and then the Ottoman attack and both sides are wiped out. Â Is the original owner still Ottoman? or in this case the original owner of the territory immediately preceding the attack, which would be England?
Two- As Austria, you don’t have supply lines? Â As in, no Infantry in the territory behind your artillery? and more Infantry in every territory going back to Vienna? Â Therefore you would have reinforcements every turn to the front?
Suggested Topics
